Media Appropriateness in the Conduct and Discovery of Deceptive Communication: The Relative...

191THE RELATIVE INFLUENCE OF RICHNESS AND SYNCHRONICITYGroup Decision and Negotiation 13: 191–210, 2004

© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands

Media Appropriateness in the Conduct and Discovery ofDeceptive Communication: The Relative Influence ofRichness and Synchronicity

JOHN R. CARLSONHankamer School of Business, Department of Information Systems, Baylor University, Waco, TX 76798-8005,USA (E-mail: [email protected])

JOEY F. GEORGECollege of Business, Department of Management Information Systems, Florida State University, Tallahassee,FL 32306-1110, USA (E-mail: [email protected])

Abstract

We investigate the role that media synchronicity and media richness play in the particular communication con-text of deception. Hypotheses are developed based on prior models of mediated-deception as well as media rich-ness theory and channel expansion theory. Two survey-based studies were conducted to look at this constructfrom the separate standpoints of the deceiver and the receiver. Study 1 (the deceiver) provided respondents witha detailed scenario and asked them to select a medium to use to accomplish a specific deceptive act. Results indicatea general preference for highly synchronous (and non-reprocessable) media. Study 2 (the receiver) focused eachrespondent on a specific medium and used 4 short scenarios to investigate how confidence in their ability to detectdeception was affected by synchronicity, media richness, media familiarity, and co-participant (deceiver) famili-arity. When making media selections, results indicate that synchronicity and media familiarity are relatively lessimportant to receivers; instead, receivers engaged in deception detection clearly value rich media and co-par-ticipants with whom they have more experience and familiarity.

Deceivers and receivers both rely on a variety of potential cues imbedded in their ongoingcommunication to inform them in regard to whether the deceiver’s information is being andshould be being received as truthful (e.g., Buller and Burgoon 1996; deTurck and Miller 1985;Ekman and Friesen 1969; Feeley and deTurck 1995; Stiff et al. 1990). Several media charac-teristics will influence the ability of both the deceiver and receiver to correctly read and in-terpret these cues (e.g., Carlson, George, Burgoon, Adkins, and White 2004; George andCarlson 1999). Two such characteristics are media richness and media synchronicity. In ad-dition, the experiences of the participants will influence their ability to utilize the medium,potentially allowing for richer and more socially-present communication (Carlson and Zmud1999).

Despite considerable research over the years into both computer-mediated communi-cation and into deception, there has been relatively little empirical research at the inter-section of these two research streams. Moreover, it is in the use of electronic (and typicallyasynchronous) media that we may stand the best chance of designing automated tools tosupport the detection of deception, due to the necessity to encode the message in sometransportable – and therefore analyzable – format. Therefore, developing a stronger theo-

192 CARLSON AND GEORGE

retical understanding of deception within the context of communication richness andsynchronicity is essential.

In order for information to be moved across time and space, it must be encoded in somemanner onto a medium that is transportable. Whether the physical medium is paper or elec-trons, the sender has to encode his or her message into a format that the medium can carry.It is during this encoding process that some of the variety of cues that are available in face-to-face communications are lost, resulting in a fundamental change in the nature of commu-nication (e.g., Rice and Williams 1984; Sproull and Kiesler 1991). Both media synchronicityand media richness describe aspects of this change.

Media synchronicity

Synchronicity describes the ability of a medium to create the sense that all participants areconcurrently engaged in the communication event. Media with high degrees of synchronicity,such as face-to-face meetings, offer participants the opportunity to communicate in realtime, immediately observe the reactions and responses of others, and easily determinewhether co-participants are fully engaged in the conversation. Prior research has identi-fied a variety of media attributes (e.g., Burgoon, Bonito, Ramirez, Kam, Dunbar, and Fischer2002; Carlson et al. 2004); those that most directly relate to synchronicity are: speed ofinteraction (also called “speed of feedback”), rehearsability, and reprocessability.

Speed of interaction describes the amount of time delay between the time information issent and the time it is received. Media with perceptible delays (ranging from a few secondsin electronic mail to a few days in written letters) are typically referred to as asynchronousmedia, while media with immediate (or nearly so) information exchange are called synchro-nous. In addition to being categorized as synchronous and asynchronous, media may also beevaluated in terms of the typical amount of time delay and their relative level of interactionspeed (e.g., Dennis and Valacich 1999). Today, the traditional asynchronous media (e.g., let-ters and memos) have been joined by asynchronous electronic media (e.g., emails, faxes, voice-mails, and video-messages). Asynchronous communication media are typically employedwhen the sender and receiver are not physically proximate, although the parties may be a fewfeet away in separate cubicles, or many miles away in separate countries. Although the amountof delay involved in asynchronous communication has, in general, decreased, the effect ofeven a few seconds – along with the physical separation – can have a profound effect.

Although a basic categorization of media into synchronous (individual and group face-to-face, telephone, videoconferencing, chat/instant-messaging) and asynchronous (email,fax, letter, memo, report, etc.) categories is mostly straightforward, there is certainly vari-ation in the actual amount of delay present when using media in either category. For exam-ple, a long-distance telephone connection or low-bandwidth videoconference will often havea slight asynchronism (which is only occasionally perceptible), and even face-to-face com-munication may seem less than fully synchronous as participants introduce hesitations andpauses into the discourse.

In media where longer time delays are expected (i.e., slower interaction speed), eachparticipant is able to spend time planning, editing, and perhaps rehearsing the actual con-

193THE RELATIVE INFLUENCE OF RICHNESS AND SYNCHRONICITY

tent and manner of delivery of their message; this capability has come to be known asrehearsability (e.g., Dennis and Valacich 1999). The ability of participants to rehearse priorto the actual communication event may allow them to become more comfortable with theinformation they wish to convey and to craft a more persuasive and believable message;however, prior rehearsal is not a media characteristic (since a participant may be equallyable to rehearse before beginning an interaction on any medium and the selection of me-dium is unrelated to this ability). As such, rehearsability represents the availability of timeduring an ongoing interaction for participants to analyze information and adapt their mes-sage and/or delivery to their perceived advantage. Moreover, the conduct of rehearsal ac-tivities should be non-obvious to other participants and not interrupt the ongoing flow ofthe communication event. Clearly, the speed of interaction afforded by the medium is relatedto rehearsability; however, this relationship is both negative (i.e., increasing interaction speedleads to decreasing opportunities for rehearsal) and not 100% correlated. For instance, whenconsidering face-to-face meetings, dyadic versus larger groups size modalities will have simi-lar interaction speed, but quite distinct rehearsal opportunities (with larger group meetingsaffording more opportunity for unnoticed rehearsal).

Similarly, media that involve the permanent storage of the information (electronic orotherwise) allow participants to review and analyze the material more than once and atsubsequent points in time. This capability is known as reprocessability (e.g., Dennis andValacich 1999). As such, all media offer some degree of reprocessability; even in a one-on-one, face-to-face discussion, each participant may replay the interaction after the factand perhaps recall additional details and and/or reinterpret certain aspects of the informa-tion they acquired. Of course, given modern surveillance technologies, any communicationinteraction can be electronically observed and recorded, facilitating subsequent reprocess-ing. However, the current understanding of reprocessability is based on the assumption thatno such covert monitoring is taking place, and media are evaluated in terms of the degreeto which they typically support the accurate storage and reprocessing of messages. Moreo-ver, although reprocessability is also clearly related to speed of interaction, the relation-ship (as with rehearsability) is negative and not completely correlated. For instance, usingthe same example discussed above for rehearsal, the opportunities for reprocessing aretypically greater in a non-dyadic group meeting, since there are additional participants whowill have memories (and often written notes) of the information presented.

Media richness and channel expansion

Media richness theory was developed by Daft and colleagues (Daft and Lengel 1986; Daft,Lengel, and Trevino 1987). They attempted to explain why managers overwhelmingly preferoral communication, even when other channels are available. They suggested that com-munication media can be characterized in terms of their “richness.” Media richness, de-fined as the ability of information communicated on the medium to reduce equivocality, isbased on four criteria: speed of interaction, cue multiplicity, language variety, and personalfocus. According to the original development of this construct, media possessing higherdegrees of each of these attributes are considered richer.


When using electronic mail, for example, the delay between the sending of a messageand its receipt is typically at least a minute or two (assuming both participants are online atthe same time) and can increase to several hours or more (in cases where both participantsare not concurrently online). Many types of cues are eliminated or attenuated, includingcues to participant status, position, social context, and situational norms, as well as the non-verbal cues to meaning in informational exchanges, such as tone and pitch of voice andfacial expression. In traditional text-based emails, the use of various language elements andsymbols is restricted; for example, the use of typographic and diacritical symbols isn’t pos-sible and the display of mathematical expressions and symbols is severely restricted. Ofcourse, many of these restrictions are technically eliminated in rich-text (HTML) emails,even though their actual use remains less common and may be too difficult or obscure fortypical users. Finally, email is quite malleable with regard to personal focus, allowing bothhighly tailored one-on-one communication as well as messages sent to multiple recipients(typically, but not necessarily, possessing less personalization).

Research into the media selection process has generally relied on relating messagerequirements to media richness capabilities, positing that the most successful communi-cation will occur when there is “fit” between these two aspects (e.g., Daft et al. 1987). Inthe traditional media richness perspective, the central role of communication is the re-duction in participant equivocality; as such, media should be selected that are capable ofsupporting the “richness requirements” of the communication task (e.g., Carlson andZmud 1994). However, it is also recognized that selecting media with richness capaci-ties that exceed the communication requirements may lead to more frequent misunder-standings (Daft, Lengel, and Trevino 1987).

More recent researchers have pursued a variety of additional variables which may influ-ence richness perceptions and the media selection process, including social influences (Fulk,Schmitz, and Steinfield 1990), participant experiences (Carlson 1995; Carlson and Zmud 1994,1999), situational factors (Trevino, Lengel, and Daft 1987), and time pressure (Bozeman1996); for a partial synthesis of these approaches, see Webster and Trevino (1995).

Participant familiarity has been identified as especially important to both communica-tion in general and deceptive communication in particular (e.g., Buller and Burgoon 1996;Carlson et al. 2004; George and Carlson 1999). Channel Expansion Theory (Carlson 1995;Carlson and Zmud 1994, 1999) identifies four key levels of experience or familiarity asdriving the ability of an individual to richly communicate on a given medium: familiaritywith the medium, familiarity with communication co-participants, familiarity with thecommunication topic, and familiarity with the communication context. Moreover, these CETfamiliarities have been identified as important constructs in deception research (e.g., Carlsonet al. 2004; George and Carlson 1999).

Deception and detection

The presence and ability to use informational cues is also at the heart of research into de-ception; in a meta-analysis of 45 studies, Zuckerman and Driver (1985) examined 24 dif-ferent verbal, nonverbal, and paralinguistic behaviors commonly associated with deception.


They found 14 of these 24 to distinguish reliably between truth-telling and lying. Acrossstudies, deception was associated with the following visual behaviors: more pupil dilation,more blinking, less facial segmentation (number of segments in a stream of behavior asidentified by naive judges), more adaptors (self-grooming activities, like scratching andrubbing), and more bodily segmentation. For paralinguistic behaviors, deception was as-sociated with shorter responses, more speech errors, more speech hesitations (e.g., “er”,“uh”), and higher voice pitch. Verbal behaviors associated with deception were more nega-tive statements, more irrelevant information, less immediacy, and more leveling (general-izing terms). The sole general behavior associated with deception was more discrepancybetween the text of the message and other information conveyed by the sender.

As discussed above, leaner and lower synchronicity media will filter out some portionof cues – in fact, the bulk of the cues identified above will be eliminated or attenuated forall such media (George and Carlson 1999). This presents a problem for users of such me-dia, since the cues that are normally relied upon are either absent or more difficult to inter-pret. Although we might expect that heightened suspicion and mistrust would naturallyaccompany the use of asynchronous media, that doesn’t seem to be the case at all. In fact,if the recent outbreaks of the “goner” and “nimda” email viruses are any indication, manypeople seem to believe everything that is written in the email messages they receive.1

Even when using low synchronicity media, deceptive communication is often not a “one-shot” interaction (Buller and Burgoon 1996; Carlson et al. 2004; White and Burgoon 2001).One general finding from the deceptive communication literature is that both truth-tellersand liars create believable messages through managing the communication process. Thiscan involve different strategies, from managing verbal content and style (Bavelas et al. 1990;Burgoon et al. 1996; McCornack, 1992), to managing nonverbal and paralinguistic con-tent (Zuckerman and Driver 1995), to some combination of management strategies. Suc-cessfully detecting deception involves recognizing that cues to it can be concealed throughmessage, nonverbal, and paralinguistic manipulation, and being able to uncover and cor-rectly interpret those cues.

Model and hypotheses

This research fits in to the framework developed by Carlson et al. (2004) in which the de-ceiver, the receiver, their relationship, the communication media and the nature of the un-folding communication all play roles in influencing the outcome of the deception attempt.Moreover, our focus in this paper is largely on issues directly relating to the communica-tion medium and those factors determining its selection and appropriateness in the con-duct of deception and detection.

Media selection and the deceiver

A typical deceiver will have mixed motivations when selecting and using a medium fordeception; richness, synchronicity, and familiarity will all play a role. On the one hand,deceivers may want a rich, socially present medium that will allow them to engender the


participation, involvement, and sense of mutuality with the receiver. Familiarity with aparticular medium would also recommend its use, as the deceiver could focus more on thecrafting of a deceptive message and less on how to manipulate the media to make the de-ception convincing. Without these, the deceiver will have a difficult time building the trustand credibility required to carry out a deception. On the other hand, the deceiver may bereluctant and uncomfortable in the act of deception, wanting to limit his or her perceptionsof presence with the receiver and also wanting to be able to cover any cues to their decep-tion. However, as low synchronicity media typically create a stored record of the com-munication event that is reprocessable, we believe that most deceivers will prefer highsynchronicity media.

H1a: All else being equal, deceivers prefer using media with higher degrees of synchronicity.

According to the model put forward by Carlson et al. (2004), there are several variables inthe communication context that would affect the deceiver’s crafting and delivery of de-ceptive messages. These include deceptive task characteristics, medium characteristics, andthe relationship between the deceiver and the receiver. The nature of the communicationcontext, as indicated by these variables, would influence the media chosen for deception.For example, where the task has a low impact, deceivers should prefer asynchronous me-dia. Where the deception task is riskier to the deceiver, he or she should prefer synchro-nous media, as deceivers should try to avoid those media which support easy messagestorage and reprocessing – capabilities which provide the receiver with extra opportuni-ties to find deceptive cues. Similarly, deceivers would want to avoid media that allowedreprocessing on the part of a familiar receiver, as the successful detection of the deceit bythe receiver could damage the long-term relationship between the deceiver and receiver.For communication with strangers, asynchronous media should be preferred. So it followsthat deceivers would prefer asynchronous media for deception tasks that carry a low de-gree of risk for them:

H1b: The lower the degree of risk to the deceiver in a deception task, the more likely the deceiver will believeasynchronous media to be appropriate for the deception.

Media selection and the receiver

The receiver is also faced with a very mixed set of motivations with regard to media syn-chronicity, richness, and their familiarities. From receivers’ standpoint, their media selectiondecision is based on choosing the most appropriate medium for the task at hand: accuratelydetecting any deceptive information contained within an interaction. As such, our focus is ontheir confidence in their ability to carry out this task on a given medium, since this aspect ofperceived appropriateness is most directly tied to deception. Certainly, it is understood thatthe receiver’s view of the most appropriate medium (in regard to their perceived ability todetect deceptive information on that medium in the specified context) may not be objectivelythe best choice; receivers are notoriously poor lie detectors in general, and there is histori-cally a low correlation between perceived confidence and actual detection accuracy. Never-


theless, we believe that receiver perceptions concerning the most appropriate medium to usefor this task will be a primary determinant of their actual selection.

However, it is certainly not a straightforward choice. On the one hand, the receiverwill prefer media that can have high interaction speed and media richness. In such com-munication, the receiver will feel more able to immediately observe the entire range ofinformation cues and look for potential signs of duplicity. On the other hand, the receivermay desire to “slow things down” to allow more time for cue evaluation; however, lowersynchronicity will also provide benefits for the deceiver. In these cases, the deceiver willbe able to take additional time to prepare and encode his or her message, since that ad-ditional time will be difficult for the receiver to discern due to the potentially larger andinconsistent transport delay. As such, consistent with the desire to select richer mediaand higher interaction speeds, lower levels of rehearsability would also seem to be ofbenefit to the receiver.

However, the receiver certainly would also benefit from the ability to store, replay, share,and analyze any potentially deceptive interaction; unfortunately, the ability to reprocessan interaction is typically limited to asynchronous, low interaction speed media (mediawhich also strip cues and make rich, socially present communication more difficult). Inother words, the receiver cannot have high levels of reprocessability while also gettinglow levels of rehearsability and high interaction speeds. As such, the desire for highlyreprocessable media by the receiver is to some extent a contradiction of the other desiresin regard to media synchronicity and is also essentially chimerical. Therefore,

H2a: In general, receivers will feel more confident in their ability to detect deception in media with higher de-grees of synchronicity (higher speed of interaction, lower rehearsability and reprocessability).

H2b: Receivers will feel more confident in their ability to detect deceptions in richer interactions.

Additionally, there are two constructs relating to the experience of the receiver that are ofinterest: familiarity with the deceiver and familiarity with the medium. In both cases, themore familiar receivers are, the better able they will be to process and interpret the fullsubtleties of incoming messages (e.g., Carlson and Zmud 1999) and therefore to receivepotential cues to a deception. However, we have already hypothesized that media richnesswill be directly related to detection confidence; moreover, it is also expected that thesefamiliarities will be positively related to perceived richness (consistent with Channel Ex-pansion Theory). In addition, we believe that these familiarities will have a direct effect ondetection confidence apart from their secondary relationship via richness. Experiences overtime with both the co-participant and the medium that create high degrees of familiarityshould lead to enhanced expectations of successful interactions and task accomplishment.Therefore,

H2c: Receivers will feel more confident in their ability to detect deception in those media with which they havemore familiarity.

H2d: Receivers will feel more confident in their ability to detect deception from co-participants with whom theyhave more familiarity.


Method

Two studies were conducted the fall of 1998 to investigate portions of the Carlson et al.(2004) model, both from the standpoint of the deceiver (Study 1) and also from the receiv-er’s perspective (Study 2). The variables investigated in each study are summarized in Table1. Where possible, both studies made use of common items and scales (discussed below).

Study 1

The first study was designed to investigate preferences for communication media given adefined deceptive communication task. A communication survey was mailed to 1,000 ran-domly selected faculty and staff at a large Southeastern-U.S. university. Each respondentwas presented with a business scenario in which a deceptive act was required (AppendixA). The first scenario was low risk. It involved a minor deception with a business associ-ate. The second scenario was high risk, as it involved a serious deception and a close friend.Based on the information in the scenario, subjects rated the available media as to theirappropriateness and selected the single medium that they would prefer to use. Subjects werethen asked a series of nine questions about their comfort with deception, how importantthey felt successful deception to be in the scenario they were given, and a series of ma-nipulation check questions for the scenarios (considering impact of the deception and thedegree of closeness to the receiver). Subjects then completed an 11-item evaluation of eachof the seven media listed in the survey (telephone, memo, e-mail, face-to-face, letter,videoconference, and voice-mail) and a short list of demographic questions.

A total of 90 usable questionnaires were returned for the high risk scenario (close friend,severe impact), and 65 were returned for the low risk scenario (business acquaintance, lit-tle impact). The overall response rate was 15.5%.

Study 2

The second study was designed to measure subjects’ perception of the appropriateness ofthe given medium for the task of deception detection. As discussed above, the confidence

Table 1. Summary of Survey Variables

Study 1 Study 2

Independent variables Participant Familiarity (Manipulation) Participant Familiarity (Manipulation)Severity of Impact (Manipulation) Medium RichnessMedium Richness (Carlson and Zmud 1999) Medium Familiarity (Carlson and

Zmud 1999)Medium Synchronicity

Dependent variables Media Appropriateness Ranking Detection ConfidenceMedium Selection


of participants in their ability to detect deception was the dependent variable (single item:“I feel confident that I could detect any deceptive information that was communicated”).Speed of interaction for the media was also measured with a single item (in which the nameof the medium was used, e.g., “E-mail allows me to give and receive timely feedback witha communication partner”). The 6-item media familiarity scale was also used (Carlsonand Zmud 1999) as well as a new, 3-item media richness scale (discussed below). Tooperationalize reprocessability and rehearsability the available media were categorizedaccording to the approach described by Dennis and Valacich (1999) (Table 2). This is a 5-point scale where 1 represents “low” and 5 represents “high”. However, Dennis and Valacich(1999) did not rate all of the media that were included in this study; as such, scores for fax,letter, memo, hand-written note, and group meetings were developed to be consistent withtheir scheme.

The subjects were randomly selected faculty and staff at a large Western-U.S. univer-sity. Nine versions of the survey instrument were initially mailed out; each version inves-tigated a single communication medium (dyadic face-to-face, group face-to-face, telephone,voice-mail, e-mail, facsimile, letter, memo, and hand-written note). Initially, 1,494 surveyswere mailed out (166 of each version). In addition, 15 follow-up versions were sent tosubjects who indicated experience with two exploratory media: video-conferencing andweb-page building.

The survey asked first for the subject’s assessment of the medium on which it was fo-cused, evaluating its perceived richness, speed of interaction, and familiarity; then, sub-jects were presented with four short, one-sentence scenarios, responding to an item tappingthe dependent variable after each. The scenario wording varied the subject’s level of fa-miliarity with the sender (high familiarity in scenarios 1 and 4; low familiarity in scenarios2 and 3) and the type of sender (“business colleague” in scenarios 1 and 3; “salesperson”in scenarios 2 and 4). For example, scenario 1 for the e-mail survey version was, “You havejust received an e-mail message from a business colleague (who you know well) concern-ing work related information” (the scenario manipulations are italicized). Responses to all

Table 2. Operationalization* of Reprocessability and Rehearsability (Study 2)

Medium Rehearsability Reprocessability

One-on-one, face-to-face 1 1Group meeting 2 1Phone 1 1Videoconferencing 1 1Voice-mail 2 5E-mail 5 5Fax 5 5Webpage 5 5Letter 5 4Memo 5 5Hand-written note 5 4

*Adapted from Dennis and Valacich (1999) where 1 = “low” and 5 = “high”.


of these items were recorded on a 7-point Likert-type scale with 1 being strongly disagreeand 7 being strongly agree. Each subject responded to each of the four scenarios. The sce-narios were designed simply to vary the sender and the subject’s familiarity with the sender.Finally, subjects completed a short set of demographic items. A total of 402 surveys werereturned for a response rate of 26.6%; Table 3 provides a breakdown of the surveys byversion. The subjects had an average age of 41.9 years and 60.4% reported that they werefemale. On average, subjects had 17.7 years of full-time work experience.

A measurement problem is introduced when using richness and synchronicity in the samestudy, since the common measures of media richness (e.g., Carlson and Zmud 1999; Websterand Trevino 1995) both contain one or more items directly tapping the medium’s speed ofinteraction. Of course, speed of interaction is a major component of synchronicity, so us-ing the same (or similar) item in both measures could create multicollinearity problems andcertainly blurs the conceptual distinction between these constructs. Moreover, since bothof the existing perceived richness scales are based on measuring the four underlying com-ponents of richness, simply dropping the speed of interaction item(s) would invalidate ei-ther scale. Therefore, a new measure of perceived richness was developed for use in thisstudy, bypassing the underlying components of richness and instead directly measuring thesubject’s perception of the richness of communication on a given medium. This new per-ceived richness scale used three items and had reliability (coefficient alpha) of 0.87. Thethree items as worded for the e-mail version of the survey were: (1) I would be able to usee-mail to communicate effectively with someone about a topic that was unfamiliar to me;(2) I feel that I could use e-mail to engage in communication that could effectively clear upa confusing and ambiguous situation; and (3) I would be able to use e-mail to effectivelyexplain a difficult and ambiguous concept to someone. Item analysis indicated strong item-total correlations and that deleting any of the items could not appreciably increase the re-liability. The media familiarity scale (Carlson and Zmud 1999) also performed well, witha reliability of 0.90. Means for medium richness, experience, and interaction speed are alsoin line with expectations, with the exception of web-pages, which the two respondents foundto be richer and possessing a much higher interaction speed than expected (Table 3); as

Table 3. Summary of Survey Variables and Sample (Study 2)

Survey Version (Medium) N Media Richness** Medium Familiarity** Interaction Speed**

One-to-one, face-to-face 55 5.69 (.828) 5.44 (1.035) 6.07 (1.016)Group meeting 33 4.72 (1.290) 4.97 (1.329) 5.36 (1.517)Phone 53 5.26 (1.208) 6.02 (.916) 5.81 (1.144)Voice mail 41 3.33 (1.595) 5.74 (1.196) 4.83 (1.716)Electronic mail 55 4.51 (1.450) 5.63 (1.316) 5.83 (1.463)Facsimile 47 4.48 (1.505) 5.55 (1.108) 5.81 (1.227)Letter 43 5.05 (1.119) 5.64 (.990) 4.44 (1.709)Memo 33 4.33 (1.295) 5.26 (1.306) 4.36 (1.617)Hand-written note 27 4.25 (1.540) 5.64 (1.092) 4.37 (1.418)Video conferencing* 13 5.05 (1.053) 6.12 (.363) 4.85 (1.405)Web-page* 2 5.00 (1.414) 5.00 (1.414) 6.00 (.000)

*These media are based on a follow-up survey of people indicating use of the medium. **Mean (s.d.).


such, hypothesis analyses (below) are conducted without this medium (dropping the po-tential sample for these analyses from 402 to 400).

Results

Study 1

Although there were differences between scenarios for media choice, the differences werenot statistically significant. For the all-high scenario, 30% of respondents chose the tel-ephone, 11% memo, 15% e-mail, 39% face-to-face, 2.5% letter, and 2.5% voice mail. Forthe all-low scenario, 31% chose the telephone, 27% memo, 6% e-mail, 28% face-to-face,6% letter, and 2% voice mail. Subjects indicated they had little or no experience with videoconferencing, so no one chose it for either scenario.

Hypothesis 1a. Although there were no significant differences when comparing the avail-able media individually, as indicated above, grouping the media into “synchronous” and“asynchronous” categories provided insight into media choice for perpetrating deception.The telephone and face-to-face interaction were considered to be synchronous media, whilefour media in the questionnaire (memo, e-mail, letter and voice mail) were consideredasynchronous. (No one chose videoconferencing for the deception, so it was not includedin the analysis.) Subjects clearly preferred synchronous media for either scenario, (t(154)= 35.14, p < 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 1a (see Table 4).

Moreover, it is not the case that deceivers preferred synchronous media for deceptionsimply because they were more familiar with synchronous media. Between 60 and 70% ofsubjects either agreed or strongly agreed that they were skilled communicators with 5 ofthe 7 media listed in the questionnaire. The only exceptions were voice mail, where 38%considered themselves skillful, and videoconferencing, where only 3% considered them-selves to be skillful communicators.

It is also interesting to note that, for those respondents who had been given the high risktask, those choosing an asynchronous medium were more likely than those who chose a syn-chronous medium to believe that the risk of being caught in the deception was high (t(88) =–2.0, p < 0.049). This also makes intuitive sense, as asynchronous media tend to leave somekind of record of the messages they send and receive, increasing the risk of getting caught.

Hypothesis 1b. Hypotheses 1b predicted that deceivers would judge asynchronous mediato be more appropriate than synchronous media for deceptive tasks that involved a low

Table 4. Comparing Synchronous and Asynchronous Media Selections (Study 1)

Low Risk Scenario High Risk Scenario

Synchronous Media 59% 69%Asynchronous Media 41% 31%Scenario Summary Select medium to communicate a minor Select medium to communicate

deception to a business acquaintance. a deception having a severeimpact to a close friend.


degree of risk for them. To support these expectations, those deceivers who received thelow risk scenarios in their questionnaires, the task that involved low impact and mandatedcommunication with a stranger, should have been more likely to judge asynchronous me-dia to be appropriate than were subjects who received the high risk task. There is somesupport for this hypothesis in the data. For three out of the four asynchronous media listed,there were statistically significant differences between those given the high risk task andthose given the low risk task for the media’s perceived appropriateness for deception. Thoserespondents receiving the low risk task perceived the memo and the letter as more appro-priate for their tasks [(t(153) = –2.305, p < 0.022) and (t(153) = –2.278, p < 0.024) respec-tively], compared to those getting the high risk task. However, those respondents receivingthe high risk task perceived voice mail to be more appropriate (t(147) = 1.93, p < 0.056)than those receiving the low risk task. Only for e-mail are there no significant differencesfor appropriateness between tasks. There were no differences for appropriateness for thethree synchronous media, face-to-face, telephone, and videoconferencing.

Study 2

Table 5 presents variable means, standard deviations, and correlations. Analysis of thecorrelations indicates that rehearsability and reprocessability are highly (above 80%) andsignificantly (p < 0.001) correlated, which violates the multicollinearity assumption of gen-eral linear model (GLM) analysis. As such, the decision was made to drop reprocessabilityfrom further analyses and focus on rehearsability (although, the results are the same ifrehearsability is dropped in favor of reprocessability).

Analysis of hypotheses H2a

, H2b

, and H2c

require four dependent variables (the four sce-narios) and four independent variables (perceived richness, medium familiarity, speed ofinteraction, and rehearsability); to analyze these simultaneously in a single statistical model,the repeated-measures GLM analysis in SPSS2 was used. Since co-participant familiarityis based on a manipulation in the wording of the scenarios and each subject responded toall of the scenarios, the four scenarios are used as the within-subjects repeated factor.

The multivariate tests (Table 6) indicate some level of significance for perceived rich-ness (p = 0.045) and speed of interaction (p = 0.060), but not for rehearsability (p = 0.698).

Table 5. Variable Means and Correlations (Study 2)

Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5

1. Perceived Richness 4.71 1.452. Medium Familiarity 5.59 1.13 0.39**3. Speed of Interaction 5.33 1.53 0.42** 0.43**4. Rehearsabilitya 3.31 1.83 –0.17** –0.03 –0.19**5. Reprocessabilitya 3.52 1.68 –0.36** –0.03 –0.20** 0.81**6. Detection Confidenceb 4.40 1.12 0.15** 0.15** 0.06 0.03 0.04

aBased on a 5 point scale (see Table 2). bMean of five scenarios. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level(two-tailed test).


Medium familiarity approaches significance (p = 0.113). In addition, the within-subjectseffects echo these results, also indicating significant interactions (with co-participant fa-miliarity) for media richness (p = 0.052) and speed of interaction (p = 0.028).3 As such,specific between-subjects analyses are not reported for rehearsability. Table 7 presents theGLM between-subjects test results that show how each of the variables performed.

Hypothesis 2a. Results for synchronicity are mixed. Speed of interaction is significantin both the multivariate (p = 0.06) and within-subjects (p = 0.028) tests; however, it is notsignificant in the between-subjects test (p = 0.229). Follow-up regression analysis indicatesthat speed of interaction is only significantly related to detection confidence for high co-participant familiarity scenarios (scenarios 1 and 4); Beta = 0.081, t = 1.61, p = 0.05.Rehearsability, on the other hand, is not significant in either the multivariate or within-subjects. As such, hypothesis 2a has received only partial and qualified support.

Hypothesis 2b. Perceived richness is significant in the multivariate (p = 0.045), within-subjects (p = 0.052), and between-subjects (p = 0.007) tests. As such, hypothesis 2b issupported.

Table 6. Repeated Measures General Linear Model* Multivariate Tests (Study 2)

Variable F** Hypothesis Error Significance Partial Eta2

df df

Co-participant familiarity 1.14 3 367 0.332 0.009

Media familiarity 2.00 3 367 0.113 0.016*co-participant familiarity

Media richness 2.72 3 367 0.045 0.022*co-participant familiarity

Speed of interaction 2.49 3 367 0.060 0.020*co-participant familiarity

Rehearsability 0.49 3 367 0.698 0.004*co-participant familiarity

*Design: Intercept + medium familiarity + perceived richness + speed of interaction + rehearsability. WithinSubjects Design: Scenario (co-participant familiarity). **Exact statistic.

Table 7. General Linear Model Between-Subjects Effects (Study 2)

Source Type III df Mean Square F Significance Partial Eta2

Sum of Squares

Intercept 468.22 1 468.22 94.70 0.000 0.204Media familiarity 16.51 1 16.51 3.34 0.068 0.009Media richness 36.87 1 36.87 7.46 0.007 0.020Speed of interaction 7.17 1 7.17 1.45 0.229 0.004Error 1824.53 369 4.95


Hypotheses 2c. Providing some support for H2c

, medium familiarity is marginally sig-nificant in the multivariate test (p = 0.113) and is significant in the between-subjects test (p= 0.068). Additionally, Channel Expansion Theory posits that familiarity will significantlypredict richness perceptions; supporting this relationship, it was found that media famili-arity was a strong predictor of perceived richness across all tested media, F(1,397) = 82.38;p < 0.001. Follow-up analysis confirmed this significant relationship for each medium (p< 0.05). While Carlson and Zmud (1999) only empirically examined e-mail, these resultsconfirm the importance of media familiarity to richness perceptions in a much wider spec-trum of media and provide additional confidence in the new, 3-item perceived richness scale.

Hypothesis 2d. As discussed, there is support from the within-subjects tests for inter-actions with co-participant familiarity and media familiarity, media richness, and speedof feedback. To determine whether subjects felt more confident in their abilities to de-tect deception in interactions with co-participants with whom they were more familiar,the GLM analysis was re-run with two within-subjects factors (level of co-participantfamiliarity and type of message source – business colleague versus salesperson). Forhypothesis testing, the focus is on the comparison of the high familiarity (scenarios 1and 4) to the low familiarity (scenarios 2 and 3). Results of the multivariate tests indi-cate that subjects felt significantly more confident in their ability to detect deceptions fromrelationally familiar co-participants (mean confidence of 4.50) compared to relationallydistant ones (mean confidence 4.05); F(2,372) = 127.72, p < 0.001. Hypothesis 2d istherefore supported.

Discussion

Major findings

The results from these studies present an interesting and, at some points, somewhat con-tradictory picture of deception from the standpoints of both the deceiver and the receiver.The support for Hypothesis 1a and qualified support for Hypothesis 2a represent the mostobvious contradiction: both deceivers and receivers (receivers in high co-participant sce-narios only) felt that they are better able to carry out their respective deception or detectiontask in media with higher levels of synchronicity; deceivers felt this way for any co-par-ticipant, whereas receivers felt this way for co-participants with whom they were leastfamiliar (scenario 2). To some extent, both of these perceptions can’t reflect actual decep-tion or detection performance at the same time. This may most clearly represent a degreeof overconfidence on the part of receivers, given the historically poor detection rates foundin prior studies (e.g., Zuckerman et al. 1986).

This overconfidence on the part of receivers may be related to the findings for H2c, wherereceivers reported more confidence in their ability to detect deception when they were fa-miliar with the medium. Most people come to be experts in synchronous media withoutformal training or even realization of their expertise, as face-to-face verbal encounters andtelephone calls are so ubiquitous (the latter at least in developed countries) that most peo-ple give little thought to using these media, for deceptive tasks or any other type of task.


The confidence receivers feel in their ability to detect deception using familiar media maytranslate directly into their confidence in detecting deception using synchronous media,given that most people are most familiar with synchronous media from daily social inter-actions. The same may well be the case in explaining the results of H2b, where receiversreported more confidence in their ability to detect deception in richer interactions. Richerinteractions, most especially in the form of face-to-face verbal conversations, represent themost common types of interactions for most people, so it is intuitive that receivers wouldfeel more confidence in their ability to detect deception under these circumstances. Andface-to-face verbal interactions and the telephone, both of which are synchronous, areconsistently rated as the richest media, along with videoconferencing. The interesting pointis that deceivers also seem to feel the same affinity for synchronous media for conductinga successful deception.

Despite their choice of synchronous media for a deceptive task (H1a), deceivers wereable to distinguish between synchronous and asynchronous media for different types ofdeception in terms of a medium’s appropriateness (H1b). In particular, they reported thatthey believed asynchronous media to be more appropriate for deceptive tasks that were oflow risk to them, where the impact to them was low and the receiver was not very familiar.Even though deceivers preferred synchronous media to deceive, they were able to concep-tually distinguish between different types of media for different types of deceptive situa-tions. This ability to distinguish echoes findings by Daft and colleagues (e.g., Daft, Lengel,and Treveno 1987), in which managers were able to distinguish among different media fordifferent business-oriented tasks. It follows that deceivers would similarly be able to de-termine which media would work best for different deceptive scenarios.

Finally, receivers also reported higher levels of confidence in their deception detectionability when the receiver was familiar to them (H2d). This is consistent with Channel Ex-pansion Theory, as is the finding regarding confidence and familiarity with media (H2c).It is not clear, however, if these high levels of experiential and familiarity-driven confi-dence actually lead to higher levels of performance in deception detection.

Even though synchronicity plays a role in media choice by deceivers (H1a and H1b)and to some extent in the detection confidence in receivers (H2a), synchronicity, by itself,does not explain the entire picture. Interaction richness (H2b), along with medium (H2c)and co-participant (H2d) familiarity are all strongly and consistently related to detectionconfidence. Co-participant familiarity may also enable higher degrees of synchronicity tobe useful for the receiver; for example, in this situation, the receiver may best be able tointerpret small pauses and hesitations in an interaction. Certainly, more research is neededto fully explore the relationship between synchronicity, interaction richness, familiarity,confidence, and deception detection success.

Implications for automating deception detection

Although this study is exploratory and there is much work left to be done in the area ofrich and synchronous media in deceptive communication, it is possible to think about whatthe findings here imply for designing a computer-based system for detecting deception.


Although deceivers prefer synchronous media for deception, they do understand the ap-propriateness of asynchronous media for low risk deceptions. In our study, a low risk de-ception was one where the receiver was not well known to the deceiver and the impact ofa successful deception was minor. Receivers reported more confidence in their ability todetect deception when the medium was synchronous and when they were familiar withthe person they were communicating with. Receivers, then, were less certain of their abilityto detect deception when the medium was asynchronous and the communication partnerwas not well known. It may be possible to devise a system for asynchronous communica-tion, then, that would check the familiarity of the communication partner to the receiverand warn the receiver when the sender was not well-known. The warning could go on torecommend additional care be exercised in viewing the message. The familiarity checkcould be done through an inspection of the receiver’s in-box or other e-mail statistics todetermine if the sender corresponded frequently with the receiver, for example. Such anidentification of a sender as unfamiliar might make the receiver more cautious and moresuspicious. Given that receivers reported here that they were more confident in their detec-tion abilities where the communication was synchronous and rich, and where the communi-cation partner and the media were familiar, asynchronous communication with unfamiliarsenders seems to be the area where computer-support for detection would have the biggestpayoff.

On the other hand, confidence is rarely related to accuracy in detecting deception. Re-ceivers may need to be reminded in synchronous computer-mediated communication situ-ations that their confidence in being able to detect deception under those conditions maybe misplaced. It may also be worthwhile to inform receivers using synchronous media thatdeceivers prefer to synchronous to asynchronous media for instigating deception, the im-plication being that synchronous communication is more likely to contain deception thanasynchronous. Such warnings could easily be incorporated into existing chat facilities;devising such warnings for other technologies such as telephones would require more crea-tivity.

Limitations

There are certainly some limitations that should be kept in mind when interpreting theseresults. Both studies reported here make use of scales measuring respondent choices andperceptions in response to scenario manipulations. No actual deceptive act was required inStudy 1 and the respondents in Study 2 were not faced with real deceptive messages. Assuch, neither study is reporting actual deception or detection success. We do, however,believe that the scenarios were effective at involving the respondents and eliciting genuinereactions relating to media appropriateness and selection; in fact, we had difficulty in Study1 getting people to agree to deceive, especially in the high risk scenario. Several surveyswere returned only partially completed and with notes indicating that they were uncom-fortable selecting a medium (to engage in a pretend deception). While this difficulty mayunderscore the success of the scenarios used, it also limited the sample size in Study 1,making certain analyses impossible.


In addition, we did not directly measure perceived rehearsability or reprocessability. Al-though we were able to use the ratings by Dennis and Valacich (1999), these don’t takeinto consideration that different users may view a medium’s capabilities distinctly. Forexample, some users may diligently file all email messages they receive, while others maydelete them immediately (limiting their ability to reprocess them later). It is recommendedthat future studies develop reliable measures for these constructs and use them in place ofany fixed ratings.

Finally, we did not measure social presence as part of either of these studies; how-ever, social presence is seen as a distinct construct from media richness and media syn-chronicity and may play a unique role in both deception and detection. It may be thatwhile deceivers want to use rich media, they also want to communicate in ways that mini-mize the social presence that they feel while maximizing the sense of presence the re-ceiver feels. Certainly, future research should incorporate and distinguish between theseimportant constructs.

Conclusion

This paper should be viewed as a first step in better understanding the relative roles ofsynchronicity, deception risk, media richness, media familiarity, and co-participant famili-arity in the deception and detection process. The results reported here emphasize the im-portance of media richness and the participants’ familiarity with both the medium and theirco-participants. The role of synchronicity is somewhat more limited, having the most im-pact when combined with other constructs. As such, synchronicity may best be viewed asa media capacity that influences and enables other capabilities more directly relating todeception and detection. Finally, while the results of the studies reported here illuminatesome of the factors driving media preferences for both deceivers and receivers, we feel thatanother important contribution of this work is highlighting future research needs in regardto media appropriateness and deception.

Notes

1. Each of these viruses was triggered by users opening attached files that were misrepresented in the textportion of the message.

2. All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 11.0.3. The within-subjects results are based on the Huynh-Feldt corrected scores since the data violate the sphericity

assumption (significant Mauchly’s test, W = 0.95, p < 0.01).


Appendix A: Scenarios used in Study 1

Low risk scenario

The situation

You are a manager at Global Automobile Corporation (GAC) which is a manufacturer of cars and trucks fordomestic and international customers. You work in the contracting department where your responsibilities in-clude managing relationships with GAC’s suppliers. Your supervisor has asked you to deal with an inquiry from

another department about a part used by GAC that is manufactured by one of your suppliers.The other department is requesting information about the part, which is a component in the ignition system,

because they believe that a lower cost part may be available that would still meet both the design guidelines andGAC’s rigid quality-assurance commitment. Changing to this lower cost part would reduce the total cost of theignition system by nearly 4%.

You know that the part was actually mis-specified by your department in the original contract. This mistakewas discovered and corrected by your department, but only after several thousand of the more expensive partshad already been delivered and used. The part was re-specified in a contract change-order and the parts currentlybeing delivered and used are correct.

Your supervisor has decided that admitting to the mistake would make the contracting department look bad,since our own contracting guidelines were not fully followed. Therefore, your department has decided to denyknowledge of any contracting irregularities with the part in question and to tell the other department that we are,in fact, using the lower cost part and that they must be referring to a draft copy of the contract, as opposed to the

final version.

Your task

Your supervisor has asked you to communicate with the other department and to provide them with the follow-ing response:

• We have contracted for and are using the lower cost part.• Your department must be referring to a draft copy of the contract as opposed to the final version. We will send

you a new copy of the final version ASAP.

You don’t want the contracting department to look bad and you are also in no position to argue with your super-visor or to refuse to carry out this task. Your supervisor lets you know that it is up to you how you communicate

this to the other department, however, it is clearly important that they believe you.

High risk scenario

The situation

You are a manager at Global Automobile Corporation (GAC) which is a manufacturer of cars and trucks fordomestic and international customers. You work in the contracting department where your responsibilities in-clude managing relationships with GAC’s suppliers. Your supervisor has asked you to deal with an inquiry fromthe accounting department about a part used by GAC that is manufactured by one of your suppliers. The inquirywas sent by a manager in the accounting department who also happens to be a close friend of yours.


Your friend is requesting information about the part, which is a component in the ignition system, becausethere is reason to believe that a substandard part may be being used which may compromise the quality of oneof GAC’s vehicles. There have been a small number of customer complaints involving intermittent difficulty startingthe vehicle that may have involved the part in question. Some individuals have been left stranded when theirvehicles failed to start, and in one case there was an engine fire apparently caused by the ignition system.

You know that the part was actually mis-specified by your department in the original contract. This mistakewas discovered and corrected by your department, but only after several thousand of the wrong parts had al-ready been delivered and used. The part was re-specified in a contract change-order and the parts currently be-ing delivered and used are fine.

Your supervisor has decided that admitting to the mistake would make the contracting department look badand would likely lead to several people losing their jobs. Therefore, your department has decided to deny knowl-edge of any problem with the part in question and to tell your friend that the problem experienced by customers

who do complain must be the result of improper maintenance on the vehicle.

Your task

Your supervisor has asked you to move on this by the end of the day. You are to communicate with your friend

and to provide the following response:

• There is no problem with the part in question.• Any difficulty customers are experiencing is probably the result of improper vehicle maintenance.

You don’t want the contracting department to look bad and you are also in no position to argue with your super-visor or to refuse to carry out this task. Your supervisor lets you know that it is up to you how you communicate

this to your friend, however, it is clearly important that you are believed.

References

Bavelas, J. B., A. Black, N. Chovil, and J. Mullett. (1990). Equivocal Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Bozeman, D. (1996). “Managerial Choice of Communication Channels in Organizations: A Literature Review

and Proposed Model,” Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, Cincinatti, OH.Buller, D. B. and J. K. Burgoon. (1996). “Interpersonal Deception Theory,” Communication Theory 6, 203–242.Burgoon, J. K., J. Bonito, A. Ramirez, K. Kam, N. Dunbar, and J. Fischer. (2002). “Testing the Interactivity

Principle: Effects of Mediation, Propinquity, and Verbal and Nonverbal Modalities in Interpersonal Interac-tion,” Journal of Communication 52, 657–677.

Burgoon, J. K., D. B. Buller, L. K. Guerrero, W. Afifi, and C. Feldman. (1996). “Interpersonal Deception: XII.Information Management Dimensions Underlying Deceptive and Truthful Messages,” Communication Mono-graphs 63, 50–69.

Carlson, J. (1995). “Channel Expansion Theory: A Dynamic View of Media and Information Richness Percep-tions,” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University.

Carlson, J. R. and R. W. Zmud. (1994). “Channel Expansion Theory: A Dynamic View of Media and Informa-tion Richness Perceptions,” Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings 1994, 280–284.

Carlson, J. R. and R. W. Zmud. (1999). “Channel Expansion Theory and the Experiential Nature of Media Rich-ness Perceptions,” Academy of Management Journal 42 (2), 153–170.

Carlson, J. R, J. F. George, J. K. Burgoon, M. Adkins, and C. H. White. (2004). “Deception in Computer-Medi-ated Communication,” Group Decision and Negotiation (in press).

Daft, R. L. and R. H. Lengel. (1986). “Organizational Information Requirements: Media Richness and Struc-tural Design,” Management Science 32 (5), 554–571.


Daft, R. L., R. H. Lengel, and L. K. Trevino. (1987). “Message Equivocality, Media Selection, and ManagerPerformance: Implications for Information Systems,” MIS Quarterly 11 (3), 355–366.

Dennis, A. and J. Valacich. (1999). “Rethinking Media Richness: Towards a Theory of Media Synchronicity,”Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, Maui, HI.

deTurck, M. A. and G. R. Miller. (1985). “Deception and Arousal: Isolating the Behavioral Correlates of Decep-tion,” Human Communication Research 12, 181–201.

Ekman, P. and W. V. Friesen. (1969). “Nonverbal Leakage and Clues to Deception,” Psychiatry 32, 88–105.Feeley, T. H. and M. A. deTurck. (1995). “Global Cue Usage in Behavioral Lie Detection,” Communication

Quarterly 43, 420–430.Fulk, J., J. Schmitz, and C. Steinfield. (1990). “A Social Influence Model of Technology Use,” in J. Fulk and C.

Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and Communication Technology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.,117–142.

George, J. F. and J. R. Carlson. (1999). “Group Support Systems and Deceptive Communication,” Proceedingsof the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences Maui, HI.

McCornack, S. A. (1992). “Information Manipulation Theory,” Communication Monographs 59, 1–16.Rice, R. and L. Williams. (1984). “Theories Old and New: The Study of New Media,” in R. Rice et al. (Eds.),

The New Media. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc., 55–80.Sproull, L. and S. Kiesler. (1991). Connections. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Stiff, J. B., J. L. Hale, R. Garlick, and R. G. Rogan. (1990). “Effects of Cue Incongruence and Social Normative

Influences on Individual Judgements of Honesty and Deceit,” Southern Communication Journal 55, 206–229.

Trevino, L., R. Lengel, and R. Daft. (1987). “Media Symbolism, Media Richness, and Media Choice in Organi-zations,” Communication Research 14, 553–574.

Webster, J. and L. Trevino. (1995). “Rational and Social Theories as Complementary Explanations of Commu-nication Media Choices: Two Policy-Capturing Studies,” Academy of Management Journal 38 (6), 1544–1572.

White, C. H. and J. K. Burgoon. (2001). “Adaptation and Communicative Design: Patterns of Interaction inTruthful and Deceptive Conversations,” Human Communication Research 27, 9–37.

Zuckerman, M., B. M. DePaulo, and R. Rosenthal. (1986). “Humans as Deceivers and Lie Detectors,” in P. D.Blanck, R. Buck, and R. Rosenthal (Eds.), Nonverbal Communication in Clinical Context. University Park,PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 13–35.

Zuckerman, M. and R. E. Driver. (1985). “Telling Lies: Verbal and Nonverbal Correlates of Deception,” in A.W. Siegman and S. Feldstein (Eds.), Nonverbal Communication: An Integrated Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ:L. Erlbaum, 129–147.

Copyright of Group Decision & Negotiation is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Media Appropriateness in the Conduct and Discovery of Deceptive Communication: The Relative...

Documents

Transcript of Media Appropriateness in the Conduct and Discovery of Deceptive Communication: The Relative...